B1G Loser Mentality

[BigRedBuster]

The point of university is not standards, it’s education.

That's confusing.

Education standards are important in determining what level of education the University wants to accomplish and hold both students and staff to that level.

 

[4skers89]

Brown University has interesting standards.  https://www.brown.edu/campus-life/support/careerlab/employers/employer-resources/browns-grading-system

With the inception of its open curriculum in 1969, Brown University eliminated breadth requirements and implemented grading policies that encourage students to explore the curriculum widely. Students may choose to take most courses for a letter grade or on an S/NC basis—Satisfactory/No Credit. The Brown transcript records only full-letter grades of A, B or C (without plusses and minuses) or S (for Satisfactory). There is no grade of D, and failing grades are not recorded.

Brown’s unique grading system, coupled with the fact that Brown does not calculate grade point averages for its students, makes it difficult to compare a Brown student transcript with one from another school. Brown students are encouraged to gather materials in their online portfolios that provide more nuanced measures of their knowledge and skills.

These materials, such as  course performance reports, letters of recommendations, and capstone projects, provide qualitative evidence that our students possess those abilities most valued by employers—analytical ability, independence, creativity, communication, and leadership skills. Employers are encouraged to review such materials when considering a Brown student for a position.

 

[huKSer]

Brown University has interesting standards.  https://www.brown.edu/campus-life/support/careerlab/employers/employer-resources/browns-grading-system

One of my former students went to some hippie commune college in the Pacific northwest.  Part of the curriculum is growing food for the college.  Their transcripts are essays written by the professors - there are no grades.

 

[nic]

This thread got boring. Someone needs to bring up Texas or Longhorns and liven it up a bit. :cowbell:

 

[Huskers93-97]

This thread got boring. 

That usually happens when people spend a bunch of time getting on their high horse about BIG10 standards. Somehow we have fallen into the BIG10 security blanket of "well we cant compete because we care about academics" argument. That doesnt make me feel better.

 

[commando]

That usually happens when people spend a bunch of time getting on their high horse about BIG10 standards. Somehow we have fallen into the BIG10 security blanket of "well we cant compete because we care about academics" argument. That doesnt make me feel better.

"if you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin" attitude is better?

 

[Huskers93-97]

"if you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin" attitude is better?

No. You dont believe there is a middle ground between what the SEC is and what the BIG10 is. Extremes are never good. Find middle ground. 

When in doubt quote Bob Devaney. Or are we going to shun BD because we are in the BIG10 now? 

 

[huKSer]

This thread got boring. Someone needs to bring up Texas or Longhorns and liven it up a bit. :cowbell:

Misspelled Texass and Longwhorns

 

[BigRedBuster]

That usually happens when people spend a bunch of time getting on their high horse about BIG10 standards. Somehow we have fallen into the BIG10 security blanket of "well we cant compete because we care about academics" argument. That doesnt make me feel better.

I don't know who you are talking about here.  But, I don't see a reason why our academic standards should prevent us from winning at a high level.  I do believe all of college football should allow partial qualifiers though.

 

[Landlord]

How in the world is giving kids a chance to get qualified at UNL not noble?

Because we weren't doing it for them, we were doing it for us. 

Somehow we have fallen into the BIG10 security blanket of "well we cant compete because we care about academics" argument. 

Who's we? I haven't fallen into that. I don't see other people on this board talking that way. The weird disconnect is you don't think we're competitive. We are. 

The Pac 12 hasn't won a national championship since 2004 (vacated). The Big XII hasn't won one since 2005. We end every year with at least 5 teams in the top 25, usually 3-4 in the top 10. How are we not competing?

 

[Huskers93-97]

Because we weren't doing it for them, we were doing it for us. 

Who's we? I haven't fallen into that. I don't see other people on this board talking that way. The weird disconnect is you don't think we're competitive. We are. 

The Pac 12 hasn't won a national championship since 2004 (vacated). The Big XII hasn't won one since 2005. We end every year with at least 5 teams in the top 25, usually 3-4 in the top 10. How are we not competing?

I know my goal is for Nebraska to not be competing to be in the top 25. Rather competing to earn a place in the playoff and actually have a legit shot to win and beat the other 3 teams in the playoff.

This is not competing. The Big Ten has missed the College Football Playoff each of the past two seasons and the two seasons prior got blown out in the semifinals by a combined score of 79-0 (Michigan State, Ohio State).

 

[BigRedBuster]

Because we weren't doing it for them, we were doing it for us. 

That's a really strange thought process.

We weren't bringing in partial qualifiers for their benefit, it was all for ours.  They didn't benefit at all from the millions we spend in academic support.

Let me ask you this, when we give a scholarship to a player, are we doing it for us or for them?

 

[Landlord]

I know my goal is for Nebraska to not be competing to be in the top 25. Rather competing to earn a place in the playoff and actually have a legit shot to win and beat the other 3 teams in the playoff.

If that's your definition of competing then here is the list of who is currently not competitive in P5 conferences:

Boston College    

Illinois    

Baylor    

Arizona    
Indiana    

Iowa State    

Arizona State    

Arkansas
Duke  

Iowa    

Kansas    

California    

Auburn
Florida State    

Maryland    

Kansas State    

UCLA    

Florida
Georgia Tech    

Michigan    

Oklahoma    

Colorado    

Georgia
Louisville    

Michigan State    

Oklahoma State    

Oregon    

Kentucky
Miami    

Minnesota    

TCU    

Oregon State    

LSU
North Carolina    

Nebraska    

Texas    

USC    

Ole Miss
NC State    

Northwestern    

Texas Tech    

Stanford    

Mississippi State
Pittsburgh  

Ohio State    

West Virginia  

Utah    

Missouri
Syracuse    

Penn State      

Washington    

South Carolina
Virginia    

Purdue        

Washington State    

Tennessee
Virginia Tech    

Rutgers            

Texas A&M
Wake Forest    

Wisconsin            

Vanderbilt
Notre Dame*    

 

[Huskers93-97]

If that's your definition of competing then here is the list of who is currently not competitive in P5 conferences:

Boston College    

Illinois    

Baylor    

Arizona    
Indiana    

Iowa State    

Arizona State    

Arkansas
Duke  

Iowa    

Kansas    

California    

Auburn
Florida State    

Maryland    

Kansas State    

UCLA    

Florida
Georgia Tech    

Michigan    

Oklahoma    

Colorado    

Georgia
Louisville    

Michigan State    

Oklahoma State    

Oregon    

Kentucky
Miami    

Minnesota    

TCU    

Oregon State    

LSU
North Carolina    

Nebraska    

Texas    

USC    

Ole Miss
NC State    

Northwestern    

Texas Tech    

Stanford    

Mississippi State
Pittsburgh  

Ohio State    

West Virginia  

Utah    

Missouri
Syracuse    

Penn State      

Washington    

South Carolina
Virginia    

Purdue        

Washington State    

Tennessee
Virginia Tech    

Rutgers            

Texas A&M
Wake Forest    

Wisconsin            

Vanderbilt
Notre Dame*    

You have teams on that list who have actually made it to the playoff. They did actually play in a competitive game- win or lose. Some that actually made it to the final championship game so your list is not very good.

 

[Landlord]

That's a really strange thought process.

We weren't bringing in partial qualifiers for their benefit, it was all for ours.  They didn't benefit at all from the millions we spend in academic support.

Let me ask you this, when we give a scholarship to a player, are we doing it for us or for them?

I'm not talking about the benefit of effects. Yes, I already acknowledge in a previous post that a lot of good came from it and those players received benefit that was valuable. I'm talking about intention. You asked how it isn't noble - something being noble has to do with moral principles and ideals, not results. 

When we give a scholarship to a player the most foundational primary reason for doing so is for our gain, not theirs. But different situations have different degrees of added consideration and altruism, or differing amounts of overlap between player and program desires/needs, or less of a dichotomy between athletic success and academic integrity. 

Our exploitation of partial qualifiers strikes me as slightly less ethical or easy to sit with than our exploitation of other college football players (don't get triggered by the word exploitation it's not meant to be an indictment), and the argument in favor of it is a little too much like Romans supporting gladiatorial pits saying, "Well, at least those prisoners get a chance to be free or die with honor! They should be grateful" for my comfort. 

And again, I'm only talking about this because you keep asking. It's a very very very little deal to me.